232++++ Cause WE SAID SO !! ++++
- Oct 6, 2003Dear List Subscriber,
As I often say, this is now entirely a propaganda war. I do not
believe that politely asking the system to tell the truth, or to obey
the law, will work. HOWEVER, playing the system's game CAN create
some rather interesting ammunition for the propaganda war.
Someone I know named Ken Evans filed a suit in district court to try
to get back what he had previously paid. The suit was based largely
on the 861 evidence.
In its "opinion" the court never MENTIONED Section 861, or any of the
regulations under it. That's right, the court failed to mention
ANYTHING about the part of the law which was the CENTRAL FOCUS of the
suit. But wait, it gets even better.
Though I trust the courts about as much as I trust the Mafia (and I'm
not saying Mr. Evans expected to get justice), judicial procedures do
allow for some interesting events. For example, it is usual for
parties to file "interrogatories," asking for information or answers
from the other side. After all, clarifying what the points of
disagreement are is a rational thing to do before trying to settle
the disagreement. So Mr. Evans filed interrogatories, asking
questions very similar to those we have asked of all sorts of
government officials in the past. The very FIRST question was this:
"Are 26 USC § 861 and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR §
1.861-8, applicable in determining Plaintiff's taxable income from
sources within the United States in the instant case?"
Look familiar? Guess what the answer was. There wasn't one. The
DOJ was supposed to answer, and at one point said it was GOING to
answer. But it never did. Then the court ORDERED the DOJ to answer
the questions. Still no answers. Then guess how the COURT answered
It didn't. NO ONE ever answered the questions. Like I've said
before, they don't know what their OWN stupid position is. All
the "opinion" covered was the general definition in Section 61. The
entire trial happened without ANYONE from the government (the judge
or the DOJ) ever saying what their OWN position is on 861. Basically
the message of the "ruling" was "your income is taxable cuz we said
so, and we don't need no stinkin' LAW to prove it!"
Here is Mr. Evans' press release about the case:
And here is the court's (worthless) "opinion":
If that does NOT seem strange to any of you, one of us is in the
wrong country. I can't stress enough how insane this is. The
regulations say IN PLAIN ENGLISH that Mr. Evans SHOULD use 861(b) and
1.861-8 to determine his taxable domestic income. (See 26 CFR §§
1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c),
etc.) To say that it is "frivolous" for Mr. Evans to believe he
should use those sections--in light of the citations just quoted--is
just... I can't think of a nasty enough word for it.
But what happened is even WORSE. Neither the DOJ nor the judge could
even SAY whether Mr. Evans should use those sections or not. Even
after being ORDERED by the court to answer, the DOJ still wouldn't.
(Make no mistake: if you or I acted that way, we'd be in prison for
contempt of court.) And the case ended without ANYONE from the
government saying what their OWN position was on the specifics.
I hope you all realize how utterly looney the situation has become.
We do not have the rule of law in this country. We have the rule
of "cuz I said so." (Personally, I wouldn't want to be that judge or
those DOJ attorneys when the truth becomes widely known.)